Bill and Melinda Gates have a plan for income inequality

[ND-Dem]

Bill and Melinda Gates, the undisputed heavyweights of philanthropy and ranked the wealthiest in the world, sat down with Yahoo Global News Anchor, Katie Couric, and addressed income inequality and other prevalent issues impacting people globally.

In response to Oxfam International's finding that “the richest one percent of people will own half of the world’s wealth by 2016,” Bill shared that he believes “philanthropy is part of how we deal with those inequities.” Melinda adds that “philanthropy can point the light on an issue that maybe isn’t being funded, or... take a risk that others won't take.” Using the example of philanthropists driving the charter school movement, Bill makes the point that often with less money than the public school nearby, they are having incredible success getting students into four-year colleges.

Bill and Melinda were visiting New York to release their 2015 Gates Annual Letter,which predicts “The lives of people in poor countries will improve faster in the next 15 years than at any other time in history.” The Gates Foundation, which was founded in 2000, has provided more than $30 billion in funding toward research and innovation in science, education, health, and technology and believes that breakthroughs in these areas will make a dramatic impact globally in the years to come. In addition to eliminating contaminated water and food, which claims 1.5 million children’s lives per year, Bill and Melinda promise unprecedented opportunities from the innovation in online education, mobile banking, vaccinations for diseases such as diarrhea and pneumonia, and farming techniques.

http://news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-interviews-bill-and-melinda-gates-040753364.html


I wonder why, despite Bill and Melinda's stated intention to give away all their wealth, it just keeps growing?

[mucifer]

1. I don't want us to be the playthings of the wealthy.

That's the way I see it. They made their money by oppressing others, now they get to feel great about themselves.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but that's the way I see it.

[Art_from_Ark]

2. Perhaps charter schools "are having incredible success getting students into four-year colleges"

often with "less money than public schools" because they can be selective in choosing their students. If you can siphon off the best and the brightest from the public schools, then of course you're going to have "incredible" success in getting them into 4-year colleges.

[jmowreader]

27. Most charter schools can't hand-select the people who are admitted

If a charter gets more applicants than it has seats, they have to conduct a lottery.

Nothing says they can't then drive off anyone they don't like, tho. Or they can't design a curriculum that's so difficult very few people want to try it.

[JDPriestly]

29. The secret is that children whose parents apply for places in charter schools probably come from

homes in which education is important and in which parents motivate their children to study and do well.

[Art_from_Ark]

31. That's the theory, at least

But as this article notes, charter schools can be very innovative in weeding out students who are not top tier:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-usa-charters-admissions-idUSBRE91E0HF20130215

[brooklynite]

50. "They made their money by oppressing others"

Um, they made their money by creating a product that almost everyone needs. Where does the oppression come in?

[mucifer]

54. The Chinese factories. Shipping jobs overseas has also done a lot of damage to people here.

[brooklynite]

56. They don't make money building computers; they make money writing software

[Trillo]

55. They didn't create DOS, they bought it and rebranded it.

The Microsoft monopoly

This is not the place to go into the exact details of Bill Gates’ rise to fame and riches. Suffice to say that, contrary to the popular myth, his story is not one of rags to riches. Gates’ grandfather was a wealthy banker, James Willard Maxwell, who established a million-dollar trust fund for his grandson on which he could always rely. He was also the son of a wealthy attorney in Seattle and thus, as an upper middle class young man, he had the necessary funds to found Microsoft in the first place.

Together with Paul Allen, Bill Gates founded Micro-Soft in 1975, later called Microsoft Corporation. After having marketed its own Microsoft version of BASIC, a programming language, the company took off. As early as 1976, Gates wrote an “open letter to hobbyists”, which claimed that a commercial market existed for computer software. This may seem obvious these days, but it is important to note that software at that time was hardly ever sold. Since all software was based on the software and ideas of others, it was considered impossible to own it. Software was developed by hobbyists and was passed around and shared in the community. The capitalist logic had its last laugh, however, and the commercialisation of software paid off.

The breakthrough for Microsoft came when IBM decided to enter the personal computer market in the late 1970s. IBM needed two things: an operating system to run it and a programming language. The company contacted Bill Gates about BASIC and at the same time enquired about an operating system. They signed an important contract in 1980, despite the fact that Gates had no operating system at all. Hence, Microsoft simply licensed a clone of CP/M, the de facto standard at the time. This piece of software, which Microsoft had not written themselves, was significantly renamed QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System). As Bill Gates and his company had hardly made any investment costs (this was done by other companies like Digital Research, Seattle Computers and IBM) and had no production costs (IBM funded the production), Microsoft was able to sell its product below the market price and gradually drive competitors out of business. The only thing left to do was to purchase all rights for QDOS for just $50,000 and rename it MS-DOS. Now they had a product in which they had played no part in its innovation but which was extremely profitable. And that is what business is all about after all.

This, in a nutshell, is how Microsoft initially made its millions. The company accumulated ever more capital and with its growing resources it could squeeze competitors as WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 in the late 1980s. Bill Gates was even able to rival that other giant, IBM. IBM will have regretted the signing of their contract with Bill Gates, which in a sense was their death warrant as monopolists in the computer industry themselves. The millions of profit became billions in the nineties, and Microsoft gained a monopoly position. At the height of the dot.com boom in 1999, Bill Gates’ wealth was estimated at a mere $90 billion (Forbes figure). They became (and still are) one of the world’s most profitable enterprises and could flood the market with their products.

[h1]Predatory tactics[/h1]

more...

Here's something a bit more on topic:

Bill Gates is not a popular figure, but the media, which he bribes, likes to portray him as exceptionally popular, hoping that enough people will follow the media rather than the judgment of friends (to some people the media is a friend).

Those who attempt to actually look at the facts rather than look for handouts may often find that those who acquired their wealth through criminal activities simply continue doing so with varying degrees of success (making money from having money, using lobbying, tax breaks, interest, and insider information).

Bill Gates continues to amass more wealth while the media he bribes contributes to false perceptions that he is giving his money away and invests only in benevolent companies (selective focus on PR-generating grants like scholarships). A lot of the investments are anything but charity and they target monopolies, with or without patents (e.g. Microsoft and Monsanto), with or without human cost (e.g. Shell and other oil companies). When it comes to the GMO monopoly, Gates is not merely an investor but also a lobbyist who tries to go as far as setting school curricula in favour of his investments. People are not dumb enough to miss it and over time they also find out that Gates bribed their press to deceive them. Journalists whom I speak to already take that as a given. They know there is something rotten in Gates.

“G4S has nearly a million employees — people whom the rich hire in large amounts to oppress the population in exchange for a salary.”A while back we showed that Gates was already setting his eyes on British schools and retails giants like JJB. He and Murdoch were spying on young people [1, 2] as means of profiling those who are being indoctrinated. Well, spying on people and breaking down protests are two related activities (mind control and physical control) and this new report shows Gates backing what here is Manchester we consider to be a private army of mercenary thugs that warp public policing into a for-profit business of few (public becomes privatised, with government/taxpayers’ subsidies), ranging in activity from spying in the streets to riot policing (where the rioters are sometimes the police). According to Wikipedia, this is a growing ‘business’, not just in the United Kingdom. G4S has nearly a million employees — people whom the rich hire in large amounts to oppress the population in exchange for a salary.

more....

[ND-Dem]

59. k&r

[sabrina 1]

3. Sounds like they are getting a bit nervous about what the people are finding out.

We don't need charity. We need equal opportunities for everyone. And we need the top 1% who DO own a staggering amount of the world's cash, to stop using slave labor in third world countries, getting tax breaks for exporting American jobs.

It's nice he thinks that charity is the way to solve inequities. And it's also nice he thinks the privatization of the Public Schools is a great idea, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

But even nicer is that he feels the need to try to placate the plebs now that they know what the top 1% would prefer they didn't. At least he responded to the justifiable anger of the people they have been exploiting in order to get all that money.

Airc, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, Gates said he 'wouldn't hire Americans' if he didn't have to. I could be wrong, but that is what I recall.

[magical thyme]

53. don't worry. you don't have to worry about receiving the Gates' charity

They plan that for Africa. They want nothing to do with the Americans they robbed.

[ND-Dem]

61. +100. and we can guess why; africa is the next china, so gotta lay the ground. people like

the gates didn't give a damn about Africa until they decided it would be the next cheap labor platform for global capital.

[kysrsoze]

4. So I see multiple negative comments here about their wealth, and nothing about what they're doing

Typical DU soapbox spouting, IMO. Tonight, I watched an hour-long Charlie Rose interview with both of them, and ALL of the discussion was solely about education, particularly of women, introduction of birth control, access to water, electronic commerce and red electronic education mechanisms, global climate change, improved farming techniques, etc.

They stressed how important is was for people to get out of their daily lives and personally view the intense suffering going on in the world, and to spread the message about being a true world citizens and making commitments to help as a matter of morals. We should be excited about this, as opposed to all the other right-winger assholes in this world who only want to enrich themselves without regard for anyone else.

These two, along with Warren Buffett have also so far convinced 127 billionaires to commit to donating at least half their wealth. And 30 billion dollars in fundraising is a huge amount. And they did mention charity being one means of helping the situation... not the only one. Again, why are we not excited to see wealthy people committed to the rest of the world around them. They're attempting and accomplishing way more than many of our illustrious Democratic politicians.

[ND-Dem]

6. and yet both buffett and gates just keep getting richer. don't you find it odd?

[kysrsoze]

8. What's your point? Everything else is moot? And BTW - your statement is incorrect. See link:

http://www.forbes.com/profile/bill-gates/

[ND-Dem]

11. Huh? Even Forbes (magazine of capitalist pig wanna-bes) says gates' wealth is up.

Real Time Net Worth
$81.4 Billion
(up arrow sign) $829 M | 1%

(meaning it's up about 1% over last year)


and gee, he's still number 1 this year; a position he, buffett, and carlos slim have traded off for the last 10-20 years or so.

[kysrsoze]

13. And again, what's your point? Would you just as soon see them quit the philanthropy?

You have absolutely nothing to say about that aspect... the actual topic of the article.

[ND-Dem]

16. Yes, I'd gladly trade their philanthropy (much of which has two faces, ulterior motives, etc) for

more equality -- which pays dividends greater than any philanthropy.

I don't like puff pieces and PR releases, but some people love them and find them heartwarming. More comforting to think the rich are looking out for us than that they're actively looking for new ways to fuck us 24/7.

You said my statement was incorrect. Did you decide it wasn't, after all?

[kysrsoze]

23. I'd rather see philanthropy AND a complete rewrite of the American/global capitalistic economic syst

It's not a zero-sum game. Your assumption that everyone made their fortune in the same way... solely off the back of everyone else, is wrong. They did not seek to control and mold the economic system as a means to becoming wealthier, as Adelson, Romney, Kochs and countless others have. They achieved it through innovation, the same innovation they try to apply to their philanthropic work. I'm not going to fault them for that.

And yes, I will stand by my statement that you are dead-wrong about the growth of their net worth. You cited a small chunk in time... up 1% as of right now (most of that influenced by the short-term fluctuation of the markets. If you take the time to look over the entire page I linked, you'll see a handy-dandy chart showing steady reduction in Gates' net worth over time. You want to be nitpicky? Make sure you absorb and understand what you're actually reading.

[ND-Dem]

26. Big money is always made off someone else's back.

and as for that chart ("Net Worth Over Time&quot , I think you're reading it backwards: it starts on the right (2010, $54B) and moves to the right (September 2014, $81B). So not only has he gotten richer, he's gotten about 50% richer. in two years.)

[liberal_at_heart]

7. charter schools are often for profit entities that suck money from the public school fund, and

make a profit for their owners. They also often turn away students they don't think will make them look good, and there is no accountability for their performance. I find it odd that capitalists find the need to privatize profit and socialize loss. Why should a for profit school take money from the public school system?

[kysrsoze]

9. "Often" being the key word. They're not all run as for-profit ventures.

[liberal_at_heart]

10. more often than not especially the newest ones. It's the new hot business. They saw they potential

profit and hopped on the band wagon.

[kysrsoze]

12. I competely agree with you there. That was not the original intention

But our new Governor, Rauner, has hired on an education specialist who heavily advocates charter schools and voucher programs. I'm hopefully optimistic he won't be able to get the illinois legislature to buy into any of it. But with friends like Rahm...

[liberal_at_heart]

15. something I think that today's educational experts especially American ones don't get is that

children are more successful when you treat them like individuals. All human beings including children learn at different speeds, have different learning styles, have different strengths and weaknesses, and different passions. We use the mass production educational system we have now because we think it is the most cost effective and the most efficient when clearly it is not.

[ND-Dem]

62. lots of ways to make money off non-profits. like by charging high 'rent' for your own properties,

for example.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/10/12/charters-lease-deals-scrutinized.html

and yeah, imagine is a 'non-profit'. but its leader makes a lot of profit regardless. his property and consulting businesses are not non-profit, so all he has to do is to overcharge the non-profit he runs and funnel the cash to his for-profit companies.

see, government-run schools cut down on that kind of fraud to a great degree by having bids for work and materials and having a lot of public oversight (so nobody's brother could wheedle a big overpriced contract).

charters don't have that.

IRS Approves Non-Profit Application for Imagine Schools Non-Profit

The ruling is retroactive to the founding of the organization on August 16, 2005. ISNP, a Virginia-based charter management organization, currently operates 29 public charter schools in four states. ISNP Board Chairman Robert Haft said, “This is an important milestone for our organization. 501(c)(3) recognition broadens our opportunities to fulfill our mission as a charitable educational organization

http://www.imagineschools.com/2012/08/irs-approves-non-profit-application-for-imagine-schools-non-profit/

The public is very gullible and these people are sharks.

[TBA]

28. Thank You

As I was reading some of the responses, I was thinking what would the writer have them do? Hoard their money?

There is a large tract of wilderness near me. Ted Turner bought it. Would I have preferred the state land trust or the federal government buy it? Sure. But since they wouldn't, I glad it being conserved.

[ND-Dem]

30. They're already hoarding their money. Foundations are one of the ways they hoard it. I'd

prefer they had less money. If we need to preserve land, I'm happy to have the government do it. They've done a reasonably good job since Roosevelt. The reason the 'wouldn't' is exactly because of the wishes of the rich and the relative povery of the many.

[kcr]

51. Yes, exactly.

I don't doubt their intentions, and they have done some great things, but their massive wealth is a huge part of the problem. I also wish they would stop meddling in education.

[JDPriestly]

32. Philanthropy is important, but as one who has written a lot of grants to both private foundations,

individuals (requests for donations) and government agencies, philanthropy is not enough. Private foundations are less efficient that government grant-giving agencies in that most foundations spend a lot on investing their money and then giving it away and on top of that have a huge social and governance overhead.

Further, philanthropists can be flattered and wooed and are often although not always kind of on a power trip. This is probably not true of the Gates. But it can be true of others.

Some philanthropic organizations give money to family-flattering projects or employ their own family members. Most often, the downside of private philanthropy is that those who give the money get to decide where it goes and their egos and personal interests are involved.

The downside of government philanthropy is politics. That is obvious.

But still, government grants are so much more efficient. They are larger, usually carefully monitored and require that the grant applications be very honest (in my experience). Besides, the government grants reflect the will of the people and tend to be conservatively awarded.

So I favor a balance between private philanthropy and public grants with more money coming from the public, government grants. Private philanthropy should be secondary in my opinion.

Still the Gates are right. We should look beyond our borders. I think we should look beyond our borders not only to see those who are suffering more than we are but also those who are doing better than we are. And one of the characteristics of societies that are doing better than we are in general is that they are more egalitarian and have less disparity in wealth than we do. I would like to see the Gates take more of an interest in how to help the homeless in our country and how to lift up our middle class. I'm not a fan of charter schools. I think they draw the better students, but I don't think their teachers are as professional as are public school teachers, not as well trained, younger maybe, enthusiastic, but not as experienced and not as throrough. I thinkn charter schools are a bit of a fad.

[FLPanhandle]

47. Gates screwed US workers over and over again

He was the prime player in increasing H1B workers so he could lay off or not hire more expensive US workers.

He profited greatly by screwing Americans.

Now he gives some back and we are supposed to praise him?

Fuck that.

[liberal_at_heart]

5. screw Bill Gates and his charter school movement.

[wavesofeuphoria]

46. Agreed. This charter school movement and the emphasis on testing testing testing

added to the teacher union bashing, removing tenure rights, under funding public schools while freely funding charters with no accountability in return .... all devastating the K-12 public education system.

Gates and other "reformers" are marked by their lack of any study of education or the practice of teaching and a total lack of experience of any of them IN public school classrooms. Hell, there are a number of "reformers" whose children do not or have not attended public school and they themselves have never attended public school.

Gates play in all this of course centers around his push to make computers central to "teaching" in school ... replacing teachers with computers essentially.

Its shocking to see dem administrations push these horrible "reforms". It is obscene.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. they grow wealthier as they have investments. the gates have made a huge positive difference in the

world, and i strongly applaud them for it and while philanthropy is a great thing, it is not a sustainable model to achieve some level of income equality

[ND-Dem]

17. It actively works against some level of income equality, you mean. It's the reason the world

is getting more unequal all the time.

But you're right. Despite all his talk, Gates will never give away all his money, and he will never have less than he does now, assuming there's no great global catastrophe in his lifetime.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. no, i dont think philanthropy actively works against income equality

i just dont think it's the solution/

[ND-Dem]

21. Funny that there have been two historical periods in the US in which philanthropy played an outsized

and highly public role, and they were both periods of great inequality and growing poverty.

So it hasn't been very effective. Equality is much more effective in combatting social ills, improving health and welfare of people, lifting education levels, and the like.

Where there's great and growing wealth there will inevitably be great and growing poverty, which produces social ills like tulip bulbs produce tulips. It's a constant in human history, and no philanthropy has ever come near mitigating it. The 'philanthropists' are the same people bleeding the poor, so why would their 'philanthropy' stop the bloodletting?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. two things can happen at the same time without being causal.

[ND-Dem]

25. They can -- but not in this case. And if you read the history of the origins of the big foundations,

you'll know the truth of it.

[brooklynite]

52. And is that cause or effect?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. its effect unless you believe in giant conspiracies.

[liberal_at_heart]

18. We must approach income inequality by increasing funding for all education, get rid of the minimum

wage and create a living wage, strengthen unions, establish single payer health care, and strengthen social programs such as food stamps, WIC, and low income housing. Philanthropy alone cannot do it, but they could help especially if we taxed them more and used that tax money for the things I just suggested.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. yes, you are right on all accounts.

[kysrsoze]

24. I agree as well.

[dilby]

33. So you prefer the model of give all your shit away today.

And do nothing tomorrow while you now live in the same poverty as those you used to help.

[ND-Dem]

34. Is that what happened under roosevelt? OK then, I like it.

[dilby]

35. You are making zero sense.

Showing tax rates when complaining about charitable giving is like comparing steak consumption in a vegan household. The numbers will never look good.

[ND-Dem]

36. I think you missed the point

[dilby]

37. Then that is your fault.

Because any point you tried to make was completely lost between giving money away and taxing it away. Did the Gates bitch about taxes at any point?

[ND-Dem]

38. is it? i disagree. the gates don't bitch about taxes; they just buy politicians who'll help them

avoid them, like all rich people.

what do you think their stupid foundation is for?

it's a tax dodge. duh.

IT'S NOT JUST APPLE: The Ultra-Complicated Tax Measures That Microsoft Uses To Avoid $2.4 Billion In U.S. Taxes

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-microsoft-avoids-taxes-loopholes-irs-2013-1

Now enjoy your bedtime stories about beneficent rich people and generous corporations.

Sleep tight.

[dilby]

40. Yeah I will need a bedtime story since

You can't tell the difference between Microsoft and Bill Gates.

[ND-Dem]

42. lol

Major Direct Holders (Forms 3 & 4)

1. BALLMER STEVEN A 333,254,734 Aug 19, 2014
2. GATES WILLIAM H III 277,992,934 Oct 31, 2014


http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=msft+major+holders

Plus the shares held by his 'charitable' foundation

[pansypoo53219]

39. unless they say their taxes should be 75%. STFU.

[ND-Dem]

41. I agree, their taxes should be 75% and they should stfu.

[Smarmie Doofus]

43. How is this different from "trickle down"?

And.... I know ONLY about their ed grants.... but EVERYTHING they do there is tied to CONTROL.

Political and ideological control.

[ND-Dem]

64. +100

[JHB]

44. "Just make more"?

Bill left out one notable thing: pay raises for non-executive employees.

[ND-Dem]

63. hey, that's what h1bs are for! they don't need no 'pay raises'

[bulloney]

45. I've often wondered how generous these philanthropists would be

if they couldn't write the money off from their taxes.

You know that's a big factor.

When you come down to it, these foundations and other charities are actually funded by us taxpayers.

[nilesobek]

48. They never seem to help anyone real.

Its always some foreign cause. Hey Gates, give the homeless dude some money.

[ND-Dem]

57. +100.

[Vinca]

49. It always seems to make the poor folk feel like beggars, doesn't it?

[ND-Dem]

58. +100

[Avalux]

60. I think they're goodhearted people and their work improves lives. HOWEVER -

they are helping people fit into the status quo. I want people like Gates to CHANGE the status quo, recognizing that all people are equal regardless of their economic status. Charity won't change the world Bill and Melinda.

[ND-Dem]

65. bill gates has proven in his business dealings he's a shark. he remains a shark. he's not going

to change the world except to make it more adaptive for sharks.

[Avalux]

67. We're saying the same thing I think.

I was trying to be nice about ol' Bill - "helping people fit into the status quo" is the same as making the world more adaptive to sharks.

[ND-Dem]

68. except that sharks aren't good-hearted.